Abstract

Footnotes (66)

Using the URL or DOI link below will
ensure access to this page indefinitely

Based on your IP address, your paper is being delivered by:

New York, USA

Processing request.

Illinois, USA

Processing request.

Brussels, Belgium

Processing request.

Seoul, Korea

Processing request.

California, USA

Processing request.

If you have any problems downloading this paper,please click on another Download Location above, or view our FAQFile name: SSRN-id2258163. ; Size: 319K

You will receive a perfect bound, 8.5 x 11 inch, black and white printed copy of this PDF document with a glossy color cover. Currently shipping to U.S. addresses only. Your order will ship within 3 business days. For more details, view our FAQ.

Quantity:Total Price = $9.99 plus shipping (U.S. Only)

If you have any problems with this purchase, please contact us for assistance by email: Support@SSRN.com or by phone: 877-SSRNHelp (877 777 6435) in the United States, or +1 585 442 8170 outside of the United States. We are open Monday through Friday between the hours of 8:30AM and 6:00PM, United States Eastern.

The American Takings Revolution and Public Trust Preservation: A Tale of Two Blackstones

Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge - Paul M. Hebert Law Center; Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge - School of the Coast and Environment

November 5, 2012

5 Sea Grant Law & Policy Journal 57 (2013)

Abstract:

The U.S. Constitution was forged out of a revolution that both rejected and embraced aspects of English legal tradition. The Takings Clause and its subsequent jurisprudential interpretation represents a rejection of what the Framers at the time and constitutional Reframers since that time viewed as central government over-reaching and improper interference with private property rights. The Framers left fully intact — and a different set of constitutional Reframers are increasingly seeking to use — the English common law doctrine of public trust to prevent private property rights from trumping the public’s interest in certain resources, especially in the coastal zone. This doctrine inherently conflicts with the Takings Clause in many cases, for if a resource is protected by the public trust, then any restrictions on property made pursuant to that protection cannot result in a taking — the restrained activity was never part of the property owner’s bundle of property rights to begin with. This essay highlights the inevitable legal tension between the Takings Clause and public trust doctrine and its implications for coastal zone resources in a time of climate change. The article explores three implications of the Takings Clause-public trust tension: (1) resolution of future legal controversies related to climate change along the coast; (2) a potential rebalancing of modern takings jurisprudence, which has arguably disturbed the appropriate balance between private property protections and the public good; and (3) the creation of better governance structures through institutional design enhancements and adjustments — in this case focusing on the institution that is U.S. constitutional law.

Date posted: November 6, 2012
; Last revised: April 30, 2013

Suggested Citation

Hudson, Blake, The American Takings Revolution and Public Trust Preservation: A Tale of Two Blackstones (November 5, 2012). 5 Sea Grant Law & Policy Journal 57 (2013). Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2171515